Under existing law, a pedestrian control signal showing a "WALK" or approved "Walking Person" symbol means a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal. Under existing law, a pedestrian facing a flashing "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol with a "countdown" signal, as specified, means a pedestrian may start crossing the roadway in the direction of the signal but requires the pedestrian to finish crossing prior to the display of the steady "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol, as specified. Existing law defines a traffic-actuated signal as an official traffic signal, as specified, that displays one or more of its indications in response to traffic detected by mechanical, visual, electrical, or other means. Upon the first placement or replacement of a traffic-actuated signal, as specified, existing law requires the traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to detect bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway. This bill would require a traffic-actuated signal to be installed and maintained to have a leading pedestrian interval, and to include the installation, activation, and maintenance of an accessible pedestrian signal and detector, upon the first placement or replacement of a state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signal. The bill would also require an existing state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signal capable of being implemented with remote installation or in-person programming to be programmed with a leading pedestrian interval when maintenance work is done on the intersection in which the traffic-actuated signal is located, if the signal is in a residential, business, or business activity district, a safety corridor, a school zone, or an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as specified. These requirements would not apply when prohibited by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The bill would, for these purposes, define a "leading pedestrian interval" as an official traffic control signal that advances the "WALK" signal for 3 to 7 seconds while the red signal halting traffic continues to be displayed on parallel through or turning traffic, and define "accessible pedestrian signal and detector" as an integrated device that communicates information about the "WALK" and "DON'T WALK" intervals at signalized intersections in nonvisual formats, including audible tones, speech messages, and vibrotactile surfaces, to pedestrians who are blind or have low vision.
Sponsored bills
Existing law makes it unlawful to take white sharks for recreational or commercial purposes except under a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for scientific or educational purposes or if taken incidentally by commercial fishing operations using certain types of nets. For purposes of these prohibitions, existing law defines "take" to mean to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or to attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Existing law makes a violation of these prohibitions a crime. This bill would also make it unlawful, except as provided, to use any shark bait, shark lure, or shark chum, as defined, to attract any white shark; to place any shark bait, shark lure, or shark chum into the water within one nautical mile of any shoreline, pier, or jetty when a white shark is either visible or known to be present; or to place any shark bait, shark lure, or shark chum into the water for the purpose of viewing any shark when a white shark is visible or known to be present. Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law requires a state agency that seeks to hold an event with an expected attendance level over a specified amount on property that is either owned or operated by a state agency to, prior to the event, conduct a threat assessment that addresses specified topics. Existing law also requires that if the state agency determines, based on the facts presented to it in the assessment, that there is a strong probability that loss of life or harm to the participants could occur, then the state agency must require the promoter to prepare an event action plan that includes specified information. Existing law requires the state agency to approve the event action plan before the promoter may hold the event. Existing law authorizes the state agency to charge the promoter a fee that does not exceed the reasonable costs to the state agency to prepare the threat assessment or to review the event action plan. This bill would establish minimum crowd safety standards for large outdoor events, would require a local authority, as defined, to adopt those standards, and would require a promoter to develop an event operations plan before receiving a permit to host a large outdoor event. The bill would authorize a local authority to charge a promoter a reasonable fee for the cost of the review and approval of the plan. The bill would authorize a local authority to issue a permit for a large outdoor event, as defined, upon a promoter's satisfactory completion of the plan and would specify that the bill does not prevent a local authority from adopting additional requirements for large outdoor events. By imposing these requirements on local government, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies by agreement to exercise any power common to the contracting parties. Existing law requires the agreement to state the purposes of the agreement or the power to be exercised, and provides that the agency or entity provided by the agreement to administer or execute the agreement may be one or more of the parties to the agreement, a commission or board constituted pursuant to the agreement, or a person, firm, or corporation, including a nonprofit corporation, designated in the agreement. Existing law authorizes the agreement to, among other things, provide for the repayment or return to the parties of all or any part of any contributions, payments, or advances made by the parties and for payment to the parties of any sum or sums derived from the revenues of said facilities and authorizes the contracting parties to the agreement to issue revenue bonds to pay the cost and expenses of acquiring or constructing a project or conducting a program for specified purposes. This bill, notwithstanding any other provision of the act, would authorize a private, nonprofit corporation formed for the purposes of providing services to zero-emission transportation systems or facilities, including, but not limited to, finance, design, construction, operation, or maintenance, or authorized by their board of directors to provide such services, to join a joint powers authority or enter into a joint powers agreement with a public agency to facilitate the development, construction, and operation of zero-emission transportation systems or facilities that lower greenhouse gases, reduce vehicle congestion and vehicle miles traveled, and improve public transit connections. The bill, notwithstanding any other law, would prohibit a joint powers authority formed pursuant to these provisions from incurring debt. Under the bill, the authority would be governed by a board of directors, composed as determined by the participating public agency or agencies. The bill would prohibit the representation of private, nonprofit mutual benefit corporations on the board of directors from exceeding 50%. The bill would define terms for its purposes. The bill's provisions would be repealed on January 1, 2032. (2) Existing law sets forth requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities, including requirements applicable if the public entity is required by statute or regulation to obtain an enforceable commitment that a bidder, contractor, or other entity will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined, to complete a contract or project. Except as specified, existing law requires that, for workers employed on public works, as defined, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined as provided by the Director of Industrial Relations, for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed be paid to those workers, as provided. This bill, except as specified, would require a joint powers authority formed pursuant to the bill that undertakes a project to obtain an enforceable commitment that any entity undertaking the project will use a skilled and trained workforce. The bill would require a private entity performing the work on a project for the joint powers authority to certify, in writing and under penalty of perjury, that prevailing wages will be paid to workers on the project, as provided, and that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to perform all construction work on the project. By requiring private entities performing work on a project under these provisions to certify this information, thereby expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, until January 1, 2025, establishes the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program under the administration of the Director of the Office of Emergency Services to improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of violent attacks or hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission, and repeals these provisions on that date. Existing law authorizes award recipients to use grant funds for various security enhancements, as specified. Under existing law, the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program limits the amount of any award to $200,000. This bill would additionally include as eligible security training. The bill would increase the amount an award recipient may be awarded from $200,000 to $500,000 and would authorize an award recipient to use up to 5% of grant funds towards management and administration, as described. The bill would limit the amount an award recipient may use on construction and renovation to $100,000 of the funds awarded. The bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to provide ongoing assistance to applicants that require a vulnerability or threat assessment, as specified. This bill would delete the above-described January 1, 2025, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program indefinitely.
Existing law establishes various offenses for a person who places or displays certain symbols, marks, signs, emblems, and other physical impressions, including, but not limited to, a Nazi swastika, hangs nooses, or burns or desecrates crosses or other religious symbols on private and nonprivate property, as specified, with the intent to terrorize a person, as specified. Existing law, for the first conviction, punishes a person who hangs a noose or places or displays a sign, mark, symbol, emblem, or other physical impression with the intent to terrorize a person, as specified, with imprisonment in county jail not to exceed one year, a fine not more than $5,000, or both the fine and imprisonment, and with imprisonment in county jail not to exceed one year, a fine not to exceed $15,000, or both the fine and imprisonment for a subsequent conviction. Existing law, for a person who engages in a pattern of conduct by placing or displaying certain symbols, as specified, allows a person's punishment to be increased to imprisonment of 16 months or 2 or 3 years, a fine not more than $10,000, or both. Existing law punishes a person convicted of burning or desecrating a religious symbol with imprisonment for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment, or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both the fine and imprisonment for the first conviction, and the same punishment for a subsequent conviction except the misdemeanor fine increases to $15,000. This bill would expand these offenses to include hanging a noose, placing or displaying a sign, mark, symbol, emblem, or other physical impression, including, but not limited to, a Nazi swastika, and burning, desecrating, or destroying a religious symbol, such as a cross, at schools and public places, generally, as specified, for the purpose of terrorizing a person, as specified. The bill would, for the first conviction, punish a person who hangs a noose, places or displays certain symbols, or burns or desecrates a religious symbol, as specified, with imprisonment for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment. For a 2nd or subsequent conviction under these provisions, the bill would punish a person with imprisonment for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, by a fine of not more than $15,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature is to criminalize, for the purpose of terrorizing a person, the display or placement of the Nazi swastika and not swastikas associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires public records, as defined, to be open to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person, except as specified. The bill would add an exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act for a Judicial Council form provided to request service, and the information contained therein, as specified. (2) Existing law allows writs, notices, or other process issued by superior courts in civil actions or proceedings to be served by any duly qualified and acting marshal or sheriff of any county in the state, subject to the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill would require a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, to accept an electronic signature and would prohibit a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, from requiring an original or wet signature on a document requesting the marshal or sheriff, or their department or office, to serve court documents, or on a summons, order, or other notice to be served. The bill would prohibit a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, from reviewing the substance of a summons, order, or other notice except for specified criteria. The bill would require the Judicial Council to create, on or before January 1, 2024, a form or forms required to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office. The bill would require a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, to accept an electronic signature and would prohibit a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, from requiring an original or wet signature on the form or forms. The bill would prescribe certain requirements for the form or forms. The bill would require all requests to a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, for service of a notice or other process under these provisions to be made on the Judicial Council form or forms and would prohibit a sheriff or marshal, including their department or office, from requiring completion of a form or request other than the Judicial Council form or forms. The bill would, beginning on January 1, 2024, and until January 1, 2026, require a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, to accept transmission by email, fax, or in-person delivery of the Judicial Council form or forms described above and of a summons, order, or other notice to be served in any case in which a litigant who has been granted a fee waiver by an order on court fee waiver or is otherwise exempt by law from paying fees. The bill would authorize any person to deliver the forms for service to the marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, on behalf of a litigant. The bill would prohibit a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, from charging and collecting a fee for the electronic transmission of these documents. The bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, require a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, to accept, in all cases, transmission by email, fax, or in-person delivery of the Judicial Council form or forms described above and of a summons, order, or other notice to be served. The bill would, beginning on January 1, 2026, authorize a marshal or sheriff, including their department or office, to charge a fee for the electronic transmission of documents up to the actual cost incurred in processing the transmission, except as specified. By requiring marshals and sheriffs, including their department or office to allow notices and other process to be transmitted to the department or office by email or fax, thereby imposing a higher level of service on local government, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law establishes the Geologic Energy Management Division in the Department of Conservation, under the direction of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, who is required to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in the state and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities related to oil and gas production within an oil and gas field, so as to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources. Existing law requires the operator of a well to file a written notice of intention to commence drilling with, and prohibits any drilling until approval is given by, the supervisor or district deputy. Existing law authorizes the supervisor to require other pertinent information to supplement the notice. Existing law requires the owner of any well to file with the supervisor a monthly statement that provides certain information relating to the well, as provided. Existing law requires an operator proposing to perform a well stimulation treatment to apply to the supervisor or district deputy for a permit to perform the well stimulation treatment and imposes other requirements and conditions on the use of well stimulation treatments. Under existing law, a person who fails to comply with this and other requirements relating to the regulation of oil or gas operations is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit, commencing January 1, 2023, the division from approving any notice of intention within a health protection zone, as defined, except for reasons related to preventing or responding to a threat to public health, safety, or the environment, complying with a court order, or to plug and abandon or reabandon a well, as provided. The bill would also explicitly authorize the division to approve notices of intention to public and private entities who own, purchase, or lease land containing idle-deserted or previously plugged and abandoned wells for the purposes of those public and private entities plugging and abandoning, or replugging and abandoning, those oil and gas wells so development of nonfossil fuel production and injection and related uses can proceed, as provided. The bill would require an operator who submits a notice of intention, except for certain notices of intention, to also submit either a sensitive receptor inventory and map of the area within the 3,200 feet radius of the wellhead or proposed wellhead location to the division, or a statement certifying that the operator has confirmed that there are no sensitive receptors, as defined, located within 3,200-foot of the wellhead location, as provided. If a notice of intention is approved pursuant to compliance with a court order, the bill would require the operator of the oil or gas well to provide an individual indemnity bond sufficient to pay the full cost of properly plugging and abandoning the operator's well or wells, and decommissioning any attendant production facilities in the health protection zone, as provided. Commencing January 1, 2025, the bill would require all oil or gas production facilities or wells with a wellhead within a health protection zone to comply with specified health, safety, and environmental requirements, as provided. These health, safety, and environmental requirements would, among other things, require compliance with requirements related to applicable permits, public notice, sound levels, light generation, migration of dust and particulates beyond property boundaries, emissions and vapor venting, and chemical analyses of produced waters. The bill would also require all operators with a production facility or well with a wellhead in a health protection zone to submit a leak detection and response plan, as provided, to the division by January 1, 2025, require division approval or notice of deficiency by January 1, 2026, and require implementation of the plan by January 1, 2027. The bill would require the division to hold public workshops related to the leak detection and response plans, as provided, operators to review and update their plans at least once every 5 years, subject to division approval, and the supervisor to notify the applicable legislative budget and policy committees about these leak detection and response plans, as provided. The bill would require operators to contact property owners and tenants before commencing work that requires a notice of intention, and would also require operators to comply with water sampling requirements, as provided. The bill would require every operator to submit a sensitive receptor inventory and map to the division by July 1, 2023, and provide updates to the inventory and map annually thereafter, as provided, and require the division to make all current sensitive receptor inventories and maps publicly available on its internet website. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, require operators with a wellhead or other production facility in a health protection zone to provide information to the division, as provided, and require the division to make this information publicly available on its internet website. Because a violation of these requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from its provisions underground gas storage wells and attendant production facilities. The bill would require the division, on or before July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to provide a legislative report to the applicable budget and policy committees regarding the implementation of health protection zones, as provided. The bill would authorize the division, the State Air Resources Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board to prescribe, adopt, and enforce any emergency regulations as necessary to implement, administer, and enforce these duties, as provided. The bill would require the State Air Resources Board, relevant local air districts, the State Water Resources Control Board, and relevant local water quality control boards, by June 1, 2023, to enter into memoranda of understanding with the division to clearly delineate respective responsibilities for the implementation and enforcement of health protection zones. By imposing requirements on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, generally prohibits the practice of medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate issued by the Medical Board of California. The Medical Practice Act authorizes a person who meets certain eligibility requirements to apply to the board for a special faculty permit, which authorizes the holder to practice medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate only within the medical school itself, any affiliated institution of the medical school, or an academic medical center and any affiliated institution in which the permitholder is providing instruction as part of the medical school's or academic medical center's educational program and for which the medical school or academic medical center has assumed direct responsibility. Existing law defines "academic medical center" for these purposes as a facility that meets certain requirements, including training a minimum of 250 residents and postdoctoral fellows annually, having foreign medical graduates in clinical research, and offering clinical observership training. This bill would revise the definition of "academic medical center" by instead requiring the facility to train a minimum of 250 resident physicians in specified residencies, by removing the requirement that the research of the foreign medical graduates be clinical, and by requiring the facility to instead offer clinical observer experiences.
(1) Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002, known as Laura's Law, requires each county to offer specified mental health programs, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for short-term and longer-term involuntary treatment and conservatorships for people who are determined to be gravely disabled. This bill, contingent upon the State Department of Health Care Services developing an allocation to provide financial assistance to counties, would enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would require the Counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne and the City and County of San Francisco to implement the program commencing October 1, 2023, and the remaining counties to commence no later than December 1, 2024. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use in filing a CARE process petition and would specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to contain specified information, including the facts that support the petitioner's assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria. The bill would also specify the schedule of review hearings required if the respondent is ordered to comply with an up to one-year CARE plan by the court. The bill would make the hearings in a CARE Act proceeding confidential and not open to the public, thereby limiting public access to a meeting of a public body. The bill would authorize the CARE plan to be extended once, for up to one year, and would prescribe the requirements for the graduation plan. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing additional duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the respondent, unless the respondent has retained their own counsel. The bill would require the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission at the State Bar to provide funding to qualified legal services projects to provide legal counsel in CARE Act proceedings, as specified. The bill would authorize the respondent to have a supporter, as defined. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to provide optional training and technical resources for volunteer supporters on the CARE process, community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and other topics, as prescribed. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within that agency, to engage an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures for the CARE Act and to convene a workgroup to provide coordination and support among relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation of the CARE Act. The bill also would require the State Department of Health Care Services to provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to implement the act and to provide training to counsel, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and others, to provide training to judges regarding the CARE process, as specified. This bill would authorize the court, at any time during the CARE process, if it finds the county or other local government entity not complying with court orders, to report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court or their designee. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government has substantially failed to comply with the CARE process, the presiding judge may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day and, if the court finds persistent noncompliance, to appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the county's cost. The bill would establish the CARE Act Accountability Fund in the State Treasury to receive the fines collected under the Act, which would, upon appropriation, be allocated and distributed by the department to the local government entity that paid the fines to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council, to develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts and would require the Judicial Council to aggregate the data and submit it to the department. The bill would require the department, in consultation with various other entities, to develop an annual CARE Act report and would require county behavioral health agencies and other local governmental entities to provide the department with specified information for that report. The bill would require an independent, research-based entity retained by the department to develop an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act and would require the department to produce a preliminary and final report based on that evaluation. By increasing the duties of a local agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt a county or an employee or agent of a county from civil or criminal liability for any action by a respondent in the CARE process, except when an act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) , an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, establishes the Mental Health Services Fund (MHSF) , a continuously appropriated fund, to fund various county mental health programs, including children's mental health care, adult and older adult mental health care, prevention and early intervention programs, and innovative programs. This bill would clarify that MHSA funds may be used to provide services to individuals under a CARE agreement or a CARE plan. (2) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Violation of the Knox-Keene Act by a health care service plan is a crime. This bill would require health care service plans and insurers to cover the cost of developing an evaluation for CARE process services and the provision of all health care services for an enrollee or insured when required or recommended for the person pursuant to a CARE plan, as specified, without cost sharing, except for prescription drugs, and regardless of whether the services are provided by an in-network or out-of-network provider. Because a violation of this requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment, with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law suspends a criminal action pending restoration to competency. This bill, for a misdemeanor defendant who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial, would authorize the court to refer the defendant to the CARE process. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) This bill would state that its provisions are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1223 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1223 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.